About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Randi Rhodes: Enabling Bush Is Great

New Fray: The new Slate fray has its benefits, including the addition of HTML that makes post creation that much easier plus some other odds and ends. But, I'm not really a big fan of ranking posts, but guess it has benefits, and you can only see a few posts on a message board at once now. Also, determining who replied to my posts appears harder now. Such things are a bit annoying actually.


I'm not the biggest Randi Rhodes (Air America) fan generally, but yesterday she crossed some line. In her Democratic Debate coverage, she basically agreed with the Senate Democrats giving in to the President on the funding bill.

It was necessary, after all, so said Sen. Biden, since you need a veto proof majority (or a new President) to stop the war. All or nothing, apparently. Sen. Biden was to be honored for "taking one for the team" by voting on a bill he didn't really like, so that candidates with a shot at winning could vote thus. Note that about eighty senators voted for the bill. It would have failed if no Senate Democrats voted for it, given simply Joe Lieberman's vote plus a straight Republican vote (hurting a few in the process) would have resulted in failure as well.

And, John Edwards was disloyal, so said Randi, for calling Clinton and Obama out for submitting late token opposition. Left unsaid, adding I guess to his nonentity status, that Sen. Dodd actually had the guts to announce his position before the vote. Or, that Randi was in effect saying "fu" to the core of the party (and her show's) base who was against the bill, realizing more could have been done even if defeat than what a majority of the country (and a chunk of the party) itself saw as surrender.

Not that you would know it -- she only took two or three calls, the first AGREEING with the position, the one disagreeing cut off by a break. And, then she went on to another topic. The Biden position (as noted earlier here, Obama in part too with his "Democrats won't refuse to fund the troops in harm's way" b.s. ... do you LIKE furthering Republican talking points?) is that if the Democrats didn't -- after one attempt that left something to be desired in the first place -- give in so soon, somehow the troops would be affected or it would be a pointless enterprise since they would lose in the end.

This is how the Congress uses its power of the purse, something that is proactive, not to be blocked by filibusters or vetoes since Congress has the upper hand, if they had the guts to play it. This is how they underline, not just once and weakly at that, how they give in while the President holds his ground. This is pathetic. And, Randi Rhodes respects Sen. Biden for enabling it and thinks Edwards a disloyal little Democrat for making a stink. More of the same? Didn't know Randi was so much a member of the establishment.

Annoying, I can take. This is aggravating.